In short, the difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is this:

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy) when he says that there are no good reasons for belief in God. Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the God is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Christians simply beg the question (commits a logical fallacy) when they say that there are no good reasons for belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Despite their claim to the contrary, Pastafarianism is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Pastafarians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Pastafarianism. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the riboflavin richness of the Pastafarian faith.

"...Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons...*"...Christianity is a rationally defensible religion..."

Dude. Begging the question, also known as "circular logic" is when your argument just goes in a loop and never really explains itself. When the premise and conclusion are the same thing, that's begging the question.

I was subjected to years and years of assurance -- from some of the best indoctrinators in the business -- that Christianity is rationally defensible. And I was taught precisely how to mount these defenses. Turns out that, except to its brain-numbed adherents, Christianity is not even remotely defensible. It's intellectual sleight of hand to amuse those too frightened to investigate for themselves.

Begging the question is defined as supposing a situation in which your conclusion is correct, then stating the conclusion is correct without actually proving anything.

However, Henderson is correct to say that there is actually no evidence for God. Begging the question would be more like, "I can conceive of a perfect god. Perfection necessitates existence. Therefore a perfect god must exist."

"but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity."

Yes, it is. There are questions about the nature of Christianity itself that show it is illogical, and there are no good answers.

Oh my Koresh and Zeus! This has to be the most blatant oxymorom I've ever seen. It reminds me of a radio ad I heard about 30 years ago about some flimsy 59¢ product as "The finest craftsmanship Taiwan has to offer".